Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jacob Burroughs <jburroughs(at)instructure(dot)com>, Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Daniele Varrazzo <daniele(dot)varrazzo(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs
Date: 2024-08-20 16:02:34
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZAUmXC7zaFZUanFYhTg3heHsQapCxdkUSA3mSDXgoy4A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:53 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 17:46, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I personally like this less than both (a) adding a new function and
> > (b) redefining the existing function as Jelte proposes. It just seems
> > too clever to me.
>
> Agreed, I'm not really seeing a benefit of returning 4 instead of
> 30004. Both are new numbers that are higher than 3, so on existing
> code they would have the same impact. But any new code would be more
> readable when using version >= 30004 imho.

Yes. And the major * 10000 + minor convention is used in other places
already, for PG versions, so it might already be familiar to some
people. I think if we're going to redefine an existing function, we
might as well just redefine it as you propose -- or perhaps even
redefine it to return major * 10000 + minor always, instead of having
the strange exception for 3.0. I think I'm still on the side of not
redefining it, but if we're going to redefine it, I think we should do
what seems most elegant/logical and just accept that some code may
break.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-08-20 16:10:08 Re: Test 041_checkpoint_at_promote.pl faild in installcheck due to missing injection_points
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2024-08-20 15:53:33 Re: Add new protocol message to change GUCs for usage with future protocol-only GUCs